AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.H. Joshi, J.—Rule returnable forthwith. Called for hearing by consent of parties.
The petitioner is challenging the order passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby the authority has declared the structure belonging to the petitioner to be unauthorised and illegal.
The petitioner''s defence is that the structure belonging to him has been in existence prior to the date of commencement of Goa Coastal Zone Management Regulations.
In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance on the certificate issued in his favour by the Village Panchayat dated 25.01.2008.
It is seen that the respondent No. 1 had called the house tax records and has dealt with the same in its order. This discussion is seen at page 57 of the paper book. The relevant portion is quoted below for ready reference:
The Assessment Register (i.e. Demand and Collection register) of house taxes in Form No. 8 was verified. At page 86 it is seen that there are two entries 101 and 102 in the name of Shri Rajesh Ramdas Naik (29/1) and Shri Raya Ramdas Naik (29/2), which indicates payment of taxes of Rs. 6/-each. The total of the balance on page 86 amounts to Rs. 87/-. On further perusal of the register at page 109, entry at serial No. 29 which indicates accumulation of tax collection of page No. 86, indicate the total amount collected as Rs. 75/-which is a difference of Rs. 12 vis-a-vis total on page 86. GCZMA members noted that from this record it is quite evident, that records have been manipulated to insert entry No. 101 and entry No. 102 on page No. 86 of the Demand and Collection register in the name of Shri Rajesh Ramdas Naik and Raya Ramdas Naik for Rs.6/-each. The Panchayat Secretary was asked to clarify on this point and he clarified that this entry has not been carried out by him. He was further asked to clarify the basis/documents on which the then Panchayat Secretary had issued certificates dated 23.10.2006 and 25.01.2008, to which he replied that he was not aware of the same.
The plaintiff''s contention is that he was denied:
(a) opportunity of hearing.
b) opportunity of access of original register and documents, which are relied against him.
c) opportunity to meet document and to prove his plea is not afforded to him.
This Court is satisfied that the short coming namely; that the order does not disclose that the petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself against the evidence adverse to him, goes to the root of the case.
The authority may be satisfied that the records relied upon by the plaintiffs are suspicious. However, such records which the authority calls to test present petitioner''s claim about existence of the structure, the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to inspect the documents.
Petitioner has thus demonstrated that due and fair opportunity of hearing is not given to him.
It is therefore, necessary that the impugned order be set aside. In order to avoid further delay the petitioner agree and undertakes to appear before the authority and apply for inspection of the documents and produce and furnish his objection and lead additional evidence and proceed with the hearing and thereafter the authority, if the case is remanded.
Accordingly rule is made absolute as follows:
a) The order passed by the respondent No. 2 on 02.04.2009 is quashed and set aside;
b) the case is remanded to the respondent No. 3 for fresh hearing and disposal and for giving the petitioner reasonable and fair opportunity.
c) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 2 on 24.08.2009 and cooperate with the hearing.
d) The respondent No. 2 shall hear and decide the matter expeditiously within three months from date fixed for appearance.
e) In the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.